What do you think?
Rate this book
The MIT Press Essential Knowledge
Visual Culture
How to think about what it means to look and see: a guide for navigating the complexities of visual culture.The visual surrounds us, some of it invited, most of it not. In this visual environment, everything we see--color, the moon, a skyscraper, a stop sign, a political poster, rising sea levels, a photograph of Kim Kardashian West--somehow becomes legible, normalized, accessible. How does this happen? How do we live and move in our visual environments? This volume in the MIT Press Essential Knowledge series offers a guide for navigating the complexities of visual culture, outlining strategies for thinking about what it means to look and see--and what is at stake in doing so.
Visual culture has always been inscribed by the dominant and by domination. This book suggests how we might weaponize the visual for positive, unifying change. Drawing on both historical and contemporary examples--from Judy Chicago's The Dinner Party and Beyonc� and Jay-Z at the Louvre to the first images of a black hole--Alexis Boylan considers how we engage with and are manipulated by what we see. She begins with what what is visual culture, and what questions, ideas, and quandaries animate our approach to the visual? She continues with where where are we allowed to see it, and where do we stand when we look? Then, who whose bodies have been present or absent from visual culture, and who is allowed to see it? And, finally, when is the visual detached from time? When do we see what we need to see?
Visual culture has always been inscribed by the dominant and by domination. This book suggests how we might weaponize the visual for positive, unifying change. Drawing on both historical and contemporary examples--from Judy Chicago's The Dinner Party and Beyonc� and Jay-Z at the Louvre to the first images of a black hole--Alexis Boylan considers how we engage with and are manipulated by what we see. She begins with what what is visual culture, and what questions, ideas, and quandaries animate our approach to the visual? She continues with where where are we allowed to see it, and where do we stand when we look? Then, who whose bodies have been present or absent from visual culture, and who is allowed to see it? And, finally, when is the visual detached from time? When do we see what we need to see?
- GenresNonfictionArtSociology
248 pages, Paperback
Published August 11, 2020
12 people are currently reading
208 people want to read
About the author
Alexis L. Boylan
9 books5 followersAlexis L. Boylan is Director of Academic Affairs at the Humanities Institute of the University of Connecticut, where she is also Associate Professor in the Art and Art History Department and Africana Studies Institute. She is the author of Ashcan Art, Whiteness, and the Unspectacular Man.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
December 19, 2020
At the offset, I'm going to have to apologize for this review because this is less a review of this author's work, and more a review of my expectation of a book in the MIT Essential Knowledge Series. That is, I bought this book with the goal of getting an accessible survey or introductory view of the basics, the "essentials," of Visual Culture. This could have been much more intuitively organized for these goals.
While the chapters give you the sense that they are intuitively and pedagogically arranged for simplicity of access, this was absolutely not true. This is WAY more dense and scattered in outline. It reads more like a collage of topics without any satisfying closure or direction to find closure on most of them. I am somewhat disappointed as I assumed this would be more like other MIT Essential Knowledge books I've read. Instead I was introduced to questions that only lead to even more ambiguously framed questions than I started with.
To some degree I feel like this is more the editor's dilemma than the author's however, so I apologize to Dr. Boylan. This book does clearly show a vast amount of knowledge on the topic and offer some valuable resources to learn more, but they are difficult to access without already holding many of the "essentials" so to speak, which is why I didn't find this to be a great "Essential Knowledge" book.
While the chapters give you the sense that they are intuitively and pedagogically arranged for simplicity of access, this was absolutely not true. This is WAY more dense and scattered in outline. It reads more like a collage of topics without any satisfying closure or direction to find closure on most of them. I am somewhat disappointed as I assumed this would be more like other MIT Essential Knowledge books I've read. Instead I was introduced to questions that only lead to even more ambiguously framed questions than I started with.
To some degree I feel like this is more the editor's dilemma than the author's however, so I apologize to Dr. Boylan. This book does clearly show a vast amount of knowledge on the topic and offer some valuable resources to learn more, but they are difficult to access without already holding many of the "essentials" so to speak, which is why I didn't find this to be a great "Essential Knowledge" book.
December 16, 2022
My first dig into MIT's Essential Knowledge series is somewhat close to home, but with a refreshing 2020's spin on the issues within. The books are aimed at readers who want a quick introduction to a specific topic, which covers fundamental knowledge, so that they can dig into more advanced topics on their own.
Frankly, the book was hit and miss for me. Some of the issues were given close and continued scrutiny, like the relations of power, implicit and explicit, which permeate culture and visual culture specifically, while others were mentioned just in passing, and glaring omissions exist when discussing current intellectual trends and attitudes towards visual culture.
The book is cleverly structured into four main chapters, which cover the what, where, who and when(?). "What" gives an overview of what visual culture is, what are its artefacts, their context, what can be seen and what is hidden, and somehow ends up in a roundabout way in the domain of the subject and what they want from it.
"Where" is the most interesting and well thought out subject, talking about the inside and outside of established norms in the present context. It's one thing to scandalise the late 19th century art public as the impressionists and early modernists did in France, and quite another to talk about the inside and outside of the present gallery and museum spheres, with some works being decidedly in, and others in an indeterminate state. Or is it?
The author employs the vortex as a metaphor for the dynamics of visual culture.I like it because it works very well to describe the way some elements of visual culture are brought into the spotlight and others are tucked away, and how, depending on the cultural currents , they are continuously re-evaluated and may switch places.
Another very important point made here dwells on the role which museums play in giving some people access to artefacts of visual culture, while denying others the same access. Let's imagine a statue which was stolen in the colonial era from its original site where it had a context and could draw meaning from the local history and culture, not to mention being in dialogue with people who still share that culture. This statue now resides in a museum like the Louvre or the British Museum behind a glass screen with a small plaque detailing its age and place of origin. It is mostly inaccessible to the descendants of the culture which created it and can stand on little except a western understanding of aesthetic merit in this context.
The ideas in the "Who" chapter permeate the entire book and have as starting point US academia's favourite theme, identity politics. Some specific issues raised here are: who gets to show off, who gets to see, who are the gatekeepers, how can we include those who are not able to see and how visual culture relates to them, who holds the power on social media platforms, since Instagram and their ilk are becoming an ever greater part of visual culture.
But, as previously stated, we're also talking about who decides what is part of visual culture, who is in and who is out, while, especially for those that are out, what their agenda is and who is part of their intended public. The author gets to raise questions about who is entitled to use certain subject matter, or certain techniques, or certain places to showcase their artefacts.
Despite some very well thought out takes on these issues, a few statements come way out of left field. One such conclusion in this chapter is that, by embracing existing media channels and using them for their gain, women in fact rearticulate and reify existent gender categories instead of, presumably, subverting them.
Finally, the "When" chapter deals with current issues like climate change and how visual culture can impact people's attitudes towards these issues. This chapter goes all over the place, taking Al Gore's 2007 documentary on climate change and Han Seok Hyun's Super-Natural installation as starting points for a call to action. It also uses Valery Hegarty's Warped Landscape to bring into light how old and problematic art can be used as a commentary on current issues of cultural appropriation and disenfranchisement, then she uses Scott Wallace's Eritrea, a photo that says very little out of context, to urge us, the viewing subjects, to really inform ourselves about what we see, how the artefacts are produced and why.
What it doesn't question for one bit is why now. It does not tell of the shifts in perception between old-fashioned sensibilities to newer culturally appropriate ways of seeing and deciphering the messages in the works. When do we get the right message and how are we to judge that what we consider today as appropriate and correct cannot become just another outdated way to understand things. "When" should talk about the mechanisms that lead to change and a shift of perspective, not just campaign for action now, because apparently we now somehow know the truth and shouldn’t be critical about it.
Ok, so there were good parts and forgettable parts. It does what it says on the cover: give a foundational knowledge of current discourse on visual culture. But I felt the whole militant part of the book to be completely unnecessary and detrimental on the whole.
Frankly, the book was hit and miss for me. Some of the issues were given close and continued scrutiny, like the relations of power, implicit and explicit, which permeate culture and visual culture specifically, while others were mentioned just in passing, and glaring omissions exist when discussing current intellectual trends and attitudes towards visual culture.
The book is cleverly structured into four main chapters, which cover the what, where, who and when(?). "What" gives an overview of what visual culture is, what are its artefacts, their context, what can be seen and what is hidden, and somehow ends up in a roundabout way in the domain of the subject and what they want from it.
"Where" is the most interesting and well thought out subject, talking about the inside and outside of established norms in the present context. It's one thing to scandalise the late 19th century art public as the impressionists and early modernists did in France, and quite another to talk about the inside and outside of the present gallery and museum spheres, with some works being decidedly in, and others in an indeterminate state. Or is it?
The author employs the vortex as a metaphor for the dynamics of visual culture.I like it because it works very well to describe the way some elements of visual culture are brought into the spotlight and others are tucked away, and how, depending on the cultural currents , they are continuously re-evaluated and may switch places.
Another very important point made here dwells on the role which museums play in giving some people access to artefacts of visual culture, while denying others the same access. Let's imagine a statue which was stolen in the colonial era from its original site where it had a context and could draw meaning from the local history and culture, not to mention being in dialogue with people who still share that culture. This statue now resides in a museum like the Louvre or the British Museum behind a glass screen with a small plaque detailing its age and place of origin. It is mostly inaccessible to the descendants of the culture which created it and can stand on little except a western understanding of aesthetic merit in this context.
The ideas in the "Who" chapter permeate the entire book and have as starting point US academia's favourite theme, identity politics. Some specific issues raised here are: who gets to show off, who gets to see, who are the gatekeepers, how can we include those who are not able to see and how visual culture relates to them, who holds the power on social media platforms, since Instagram and their ilk are becoming an ever greater part of visual culture.
But, as previously stated, we're also talking about who decides what is part of visual culture, who is in and who is out, while, especially for those that are out, what their agenda is and who is part of their intended public. The author gets to raise questions about who is entitled to use certain subject matter, or certain techniques, or certain places to showcase their artefacts.
Despite some very well thought out takes on these issues, a few statements come way out of left field. One such conclusion in this chapter is that, by embracing existing media channels and using them for their gain, women in fact rearticulate and reify existent gender categories instead of, presumably, subverting them.
Finally, the "When" chapter deals with current issues like climate change and how visual culture can impact people's attitudes towards these issues. This chapter goes all over the place, taking Al Gore's 2007 documentary on climate change and Han Seok Hyun's Super-Natural installation as starting points for a call to action. It also uses Valery Hegarty's Warped Landscape to bring into light how old and problematic art can be used as a commentary on current issues of cultural appropriation and disenfranchisement, then she uses Scott Wallace's Eritrea, a photo that says very little out of context, to urge us, the viewing subjects, to really inform ourselves about what we see, how the artefacts are produced and why.
What it doesn't question for one bit is why now. It does not tell of the shifts in perception between old-fashioned sensibilities to newer culturally appropriate ways of seeing and deciphering the messages in the works. When do we get the right message and how are we to judge that what we consider today as appropriate and correct cannot become just another outdated way to understand things. "When" should talk about the mechanisms that lead to change and a shift of perspective, not just campaign for action now, because apparently we now somehow know the truth and shouldn’t be critical about it.
Ok, so there were good parts and forgettable parts. It does what it says on the cover: give a foundational knowledge of current discourse on visual culture. But I felt the whole militant part of the book to be completely unnecessary and detrimental on the whole.
December 14, 2021
約翰‧伯格有一本書叫《觀看的方式》，這本書我常在書店看到擺在藝術設計書架周圍，通常是放在最顯眼的位子，這本身就構成一種觀看的方式~
有很多書籍和影片教人如何欣賞藝術，似乎普羅大眾都沒有品味鑑賞藝術，在英文裡面，精緻藝術被稱為fine art，或者high art，藝術品味的高雅，變成一種衡量準則，用來判斷一個人是否有文化涵養。因此，任何人只要有錢了，一方面為了彰顯社會地位，另一方面為了追求層次更高的精神世界，就會開始蒐集和投資藝術品。藝術能讓觀看者陶冶性情，好吧，可能也有一點附庸風雅的矯情，但人生短促，死亡是藝術永恆的課題，更凸顯人生的荒謬性，透過思索一些哲理上的命題，的確能帶給觀者些許安慰吧?
我以前也很困惑到底什麼是”觀看的方式”? 眼睛看到的東西就長那樣，有什麼好探討的呢? 觀看這個動作很自然，幹嘛大費周章去胡思亂想? 後來讀了一些介紹藝術欣賞的書，每一本書的結語都一樣，每個人都是藝術家，藝術這件事被推捧得過於崇高，導致一般人懶得去學習如何欣賞藝術。
你看，這幅畫的某個局部，這樣那樣，代表的是情慾的流動，意旨那個年代的女性壓抑，男性在歷史上佔據支配地位，女性以一種所有物的形式存在。諸如此類的藝術批評讀多了，某一天好像就開竅了! 的確很有意思，知識讓人懂得解構世界的方式，精神世界好像也向上提升好幾個階層，這個感受只有自己體驗過，才能品味箇中滋味。不過，瞭解了觀看的方式後，其實經常有一種感覺，有點畫蛇添足，因為知識性(或藝術性)的觀看視角，會將你”抽離”現實，思緒恍惚，飄飄然如微醺，後勁卻很強，欣賞完以後會產生宿醉的反效果，假如酒品不好，喝醉了可能會發酒瘋。
以前希望提高自身的感官能力，讓自己用更敏銳的官能去體驗世界，現在已經具備這種能耐，卻開始反思它究竟有什麼意義? 這跟”批判性思考”相當類似，社會上有一股聲音，不斷提倡批判性思考的重要性，但這種思維習慣到了某種程度以後，它會產生質變，為了批判而批判，演變至今，純粹就是看誰聲音大，基本上就能掌握話語權。大部分的人都有一套由社會規範、文化傳統、社群媒體塑造而成的主流價值觀，它是一種堅不可摧的意識形態堡壘，不容任何質疑。現在都提倡閱讀對吧，等到你懂得解構社會的構面，隱藏其中的荒唐就顯而易見，想要批評嗎? 只會感到力不從心，群體大於個體，服從與從眾，才是生存的最佳法則，先別想什麼社會正義，光一個孤獨感就令人坐以待斃。因此，所謂的批判性思考和知性的觀看方式，真的蠻矯情的哈哈，就像社群媒體的初衷是強化人與人的連結，結果變成撕裂族群的科技冷漠，大家都成為精神世界的數位遊牧族。
我還沒有拜讀過約翰‧伯格的巨作，因為總覺得看完以後，搞不好自己又會陷入更深層、沒必要的思緒漩渦，腦袋一直旋轉會暈眩，難怪那些哲學家都”腦袋怪怪”的XD，20世紀最偉大的維根斯坦老兄就是經典的例子啊，出身文藝之家，結果兩個哥哥都自殺，維根斯坦也是一副抑鬱寡歡的愁容，對於人類生存的本質有透徹的體悟又怎樣，真的過得快樂嗎? 這種疑惑為什麼很少人提出呢? 只顧著歌頌偉大的哲學成就，那些思想家好像變成一種只存在於文本裡的神祉，肉體的歡愉和精神世界的豐腴，哪個才是真實的快樂? 難怪有mind-body problem，我應該是唯心論者啦，畢竟目前還沒有足夠的物質讓我的心靈有所寄託，只好在心靈層面的死胡同一直繞圈圈^^。
有時候會覺得喜歡閱讀是一種詛咒~唉呦，真的很難跳脫愛思考的迴圈，總是好奇是否有更多新穎的觀點，能夠解釋自己所處的時代及環境。上面提到的”觀看的方式”，在學術研究的範疇裡，歸屬於視覺文化研究，即visual culture studies。這個學科算是相當晚近的研究領域，80年代開始才逐漸成為一門新興學科，它研究什麼東西呢? 就是上述那些相當抽象的概念，我覺得已經像哲學研究了，採用各種跨學科研究方法去分析視覺影像帶給人類的意義。舉個例子，當我們觀看一幅圖像，我們可能會說這幅畫很漂亮，這時視覺文化理論家就會反過來問:[等等，你有沒有想過，究竟這幅畫想要讓你看到什麼? 這幅畫本身的存在，就是希望被人觀看，但是它的存在是否有任何前提呢? 它真的讓你感到快樂嗎? 或是用快樂去掩飾悲傷呢?] 好啦，你懂我的意思，這種書會深刻的剖析事物的本質，一個很自然的觀看動作，竟然蘊含無窮無盡的論證與巧思，我給這本書滿滿的五顆星!
閱讀這種書之前都要先深呼吸，因為不知道自己讀完以後思想上會有什麼樣的變化。我的經驗好壞皆有，有些書讀完以後會讓自己變得更消極，在一個講求快樂、積極、活潑開朗的社會裡，以小弟的經驗來說，實在不建議去讀那些批判性元素過重的作品，讀一讀Steven Covey或Tony Robbins的書比較實在，與成功有約啊! (這不是反諷喔^^)。反之，讀這種充滿哲理思辨的作品，程度輕者像玩喜八啦，小賭怡情；程度嚴重者就像俄羅斯輪盤，拿著槍對著腦袋轟一聲，腦漿四溢，得不償失啊!
所幸，這本MIT Essential Knowledge Series沒有讓我失望! 話說這個書系真的驚為天人，目前已經有超過80本的作品，而且主題越來越精彩，這是我讀的第14本，每一本都把我的思考電路板重新配線(re-wired)，原來有這麼多觀看世界的模式，所以才被稱為Essential knowledge，這些知識能幫助讀者釐清越來越複雜的日常生活。麻省理工學院是世界上首屈一指的科學/科技研究機構，很多影響全人類的科學發明、理論、技術都是從此誕生，MIT在媒體研究領域也很權威，MIT Media Lab根本就像科幻小說情節的實驗室，這種跨領域的交融實在太吸引人了! 不過，涉及愛潑斯坦的捐款一案，還是讓人唏噓，金錢真的是資本社會的話語權。
MIT Press也是世界知名的學術出版社，他們為了因應資訊爆炸時代的閱讀習慣，推出這一套輕巧優雅的Essential Knowledge Series，封面設計也相當精美! 本書系關注貼近時事的議題，邀請某個領域的專家以平易近人的筆觸撰寫獻給普通讀者的讀本。這些主題相當有深度，一般人沒時間，也沒心力去仔細研讀，所以這種書格外珍貴，整個書系的出發點就是希望讓忙碌的現代人，假如有心，能透過專家的指引，去蕪存菁，輕鬆愉快的認識一門深奧的學科。這個書系還有一個特點，MIT既然是科技研究的重鎮，它聚焦的主題也相當有科技感。目前科技巨頭統治整個世界，商業世界也彌漫著濃厚的矽谷氛圍，矽谷文化成為新時代的商業精神。這套書系介紹了許多科技相關的主題，從深度學習到網路迷因，主題橫跨商業、科技、文化、經濟、哲學…這個書系中我讀過的十幾本書，從來沒有讓我失望過，獲得的啟發只能以”大開眼界”來形容~
本書作者Alexis Boylan是康乃狄克大學的藝術歷史助理教授，她的研究專長包含藝術歷史、視覺文化、非裔研究(Africana Studies)，特別著重於性別和族群的議題上。光看她的研究領域，大概就能想像這本書的基調了，從藝術的高度出發，結合性別研究和族群研究的論述，透過多維視角的審視，刺激讀者去思考我們看到的世界，別再來者不拒，而應該適度的拒絕外界強加給你的視覺影像，唯有如此，我們才能在越來越失焦的21��紀，將自己的目光聚焦在真正有意義的視覺圖像。有意思的是，作者並不希望讀者完全把眼睛閉上，這樣等於徹底否定視覺文化存在的意義，良性的視覺文化會使觀者思考，進而產生對話，甚至產生共鳴。
MIT Press的Youtube頻道有作者的訪談，有興趣的人可以去聽一下，��縮了本書精華。我蠻喜歡聽這種有深度的對談，作者也提到訪談本身就是一種視覺文化的呈現。假如沒有新冠疫情，這場對話應該會發生於某間書店、講堂、教室…某個實體的空間，不過因為居家隔離，過去這一年半的時間，人類被迫使用線上視訊的方式溝通，甚至產生一些新的詞彙如zoom fatigue，大家一整天都要盯著螢幕，這也引起許多奇妙的心理反應。以前我們對著他人說話時，不會意識到”自己在說話”，但現在一邊說話，一邊就能看到自己講話的臉。你、我、他之間的分界變得更虛幻，每個人都成為半個漂浮的軀殼，人類這種生物好像只有上半身，下半身都消失了(恩…這樣叫腿控的人怎麼辦呢~)。針對這種微妙的心靈觸感，正是作者擅長的論述主題! 她也有合寫過一本書，從視覺文化的視角，去分析《瘋狂麥斯：憤怒道》裡的女性主義。你可能會覺得天啊，吃飽太閒嗎? 看個爽片，誰會在乎什麼女性主義? 所以囉~學術研究才永遠那麼小眾，跟一般生活脫節，但對喜歡思考的人來說，這種思考很有趣，賦予平凡無奇的事物生動的詮釋!
這本書不厚，大約120頁平裝版的內文而已，從what、where、who、when四個角度切入。作者最想傳遞的主旨就是希望讀者勇於挑戰既有的視覺文化，視覺影像的汰舊換新，本身就是社會進步的原動力。以藝術史為例，正宗的西洋藝術史是以白人為中心建構出來的，亞裔、拉丁裔、非裔等族裔是游離於邊緣的群體，因此當代的藝術欣賞，其實只是白人所認同的藝術，忽略了其他人的視角。另外，就算在白人的世界裡也有區分，主流的與非主流的，你有沒有想過，藝術家在歷史上的評價，究竟由誰定義? 難道畢卡索的畫，真的比某幅塗鴉更高尚嗎?
假如畢卡索是一位女性，她能獲得那麼高的評價嗎? 歸根究柢，人類社會太繽紛，總得有一個”正典”(canon)，為其他人樹立一個典範，所以這些”正典”成為主流的價值觀，非主流就被冷落了。但別灰心，視覺文化是動態的，並非一陳不變，例如Banksy的塗鴉，不也成為最高雅的拍賣會的寵兒嘛~
我很喜歡visual culture這個詞，觀看的方式，提供日常反思的借鏡。本書最令我印象深刻的論述跟金卡戴珊有關，我以前蠻討厭她這種鋪張浮誇的炫耀式消費主義，簡直是膚淺的極致! 讀完這本書以後，我反而開始欣賞她這種表現。作者說她把自己的軀殼打造成完美的賺錢機器，那些誇張的自拍其實讓她掌控了自己身體的話語權，在人類的歷史中，女性的身體經常被當作男性剝削的俘虜，女性身體的勞動價值(如做家事)也常常被忽視，”做家事”的社會價值沒有反應在GDP的計算裡，無法獲得金錢上的報酬，卻被認為理所當然。金卡達姍在某種程度上打破這種傳統思維，我使用我的身體賺我的錢，天經地義，完美女力的展現~這種觀看的方式，確實很有意思~
前陣子我找到一本得獎的學術作品《The Decisive Network: Magnum Photos and the Postwar Image Market》，研究馬格蘭攝影通訊社如何塑造二戰後人類觀看紀實影像的視角，新聞影像跟商業利益有哪些情慾糾葛呢? 前陣子看了德國之聲的紀錄片《Abbas by Abbas》，認識一位剛去世的攝影巨匠Abbas Attar，這種紀錄片真的是發人深省! 影像蘊含的力量無窮，一張圖勝過千言萬語。視覺就是文化，I see, I come, I conquer，凱薩所言甚是；看某種影片也一樣，I see, I cxm, I conquer. 誰叫人類天生是視覺性動物呢^V^
有很多書籍和影片教人如何欣賞藝術，似乎普羅大眾都沒有品味鑑賞藝術，在英文裡面，精緻藝術被稱為fine art，或者high art，藝術品味的高雅，變成一種衡量準則，用來判斷一個人是否有文化涵養。因此，任何人只要有錢了，一方面為了彰顯社會地位，另一方面為了追求層次更高的精神世界，就會開始蒐集和投資藝術品。藝術能讓觀看者陶冶性情，好吧，可能也有一點附庸風雅的矯情，但人生短促，死亡是藝術永恆的課題，更凸顯人生的荒謬性，透過思索一些哲理上的命題，的確能帶給觀者些許安慰吧?
我以前也很困惑到底什麼是”觀看的方式”? 眼睛看到的東西就長那樣，有什麼好探討的呢? 觀看這個動作很自然，幹嘛大費周章去胡思亂想? 後來讀了一些介紹藝術欣賞的書，每一本書的結語都一樣，每個人都是藝術家，藝術這件事被推捧得過於崇高，導致一般人懶得去學習如何欣賞藝術。
你看，這幅畫的某個局部，這樣那樣，代表的是情慾的流動，意旨那個年代的女性壓抑，男性在歷史上佔據支配地位，女性以一種所有物的形式存在。諸如此類的藝術批評讀多了，某一天好像就開竅了! 的確很有意思，知識讓人懂得解構世界的方式，精神世界好像也向上提升好幾個階層，這個感受只有自己體驗過，才能品味箇中滋味。不過，瞭解了觀看的方式後，其實經常有一種感覺，有點畫蛇添足，因為知識性(或藝術性)的觀看視角，會將你”抽離”現實，思緒恍惚，飄飄然如微醺，後勁卻很強，欣賞完以後會產生宿醉的反效果，假如酒品不好，喝醉了可能會發酒瘋。
以前希望提高自身的感官能力，讓自己用更敏銳的官能去體驗世界，現在已經具備這種能耐，卻開始反思它究竟有什麼意義? 這跟”批判性思考”相當類似，社會上有一股聲音，不斷提倡批判性思考的重要性，但這種思維習慣到了某種程度以後，它會產生質變，為了批判而批判，演變至今，純粹就是看誰聲音大，基本上就能掌握話語權。大部分的人都有一套由社會規範、文化傳統、社群媒體塑造而成的主流價值觀，它是一種堅不可摧的意識形態堡壘，不容任何質疑。現在都提倡閱讀對吧，等到你懂得解構社會的構面，隱藏其中的荒唐就顯而易見，想要批評嗎? 只會感到力不從心，群體大於個體，服從與從眾，才是生存的最佳法則，先別想什麼社會正義，光一個孤獨感就令人坐以待斃。因此，所謂的批判性思考和知性的觀看方式，真的蠻矯情的哈哈，就像社群媒體的初衷是強化人與人的連結，結果變成撕裂族群的科技冷漠，大家都成為精神世界的數位遊牧族。
我還沒有拜讀過約翰‧伯格的巨作，因為總覺得看完以後，搞不好自己又會陷入更深層、沒必要的思緒漩渦，腦袋一直旋轉會暈眩，難怪那些哲學家都”腦袋怪怪”的XD，20世紀最偉大的維根斯坦老兄就是經典的例子啊，出身文藝之家，結果兩個哥哥都自殺，維根斯坦也是一副抑鬱寡歡的愁容，對於人類生存的本質有透徹的體悟又怎樣，真的過得快樂嗎? 這種疑惑為什麼很少人提出呢? 只顧著歌頌偉大的哲學成就，那些思想家好像變成一種只存在於文本裡的神祉，肉體的歡愉和精神世界的豐腴，哪個才是真實的快樂? 難怪有mind-body problem，我應該是唯心論者啦，畢竟目前還沒有足夠的物質讓我的心靈有所寄託，只好在心靈層面的死胡同一直繞圈圈^^。
有時候會覺得喜歡閱讀是一種詛咒~唉呦，真的很難跳脫愛思考的迴圈，總是好奇是否有更多新穎的觀點，能夠解釋自己所處的時代及環境。上面提到的”觀看的方式”，在學術研究的範疇裡，歸屬於視覺文化研究，即visual culture studies。這個學科算是相當晚近的研究領域，80年代開始才逐漸成為一門新興學科，它研究什麼東西呢? 就是上述那些相當抽象的概念，我覺得已經像哲學研究了，採用各種跨學科研究方法去分析視覺影像帶給人類的意義。舉個例子，當我們觀看一幅圖像，我們可能會說這幅畫很漂亮，這時視覺文化理論家就會反過來問:[等等，你有沒有想過，究竟這幅畫想要讓你看到什麼? 這幅畫本身的存在，就是希望被人觀看，但是它的存在是否有任何前提呢? 它真的讓你感到快樂嗎? 或是用快樂去掩飾悲傷呢?] 好啦，你懂我的意思，這種書會深刻的剖析事物的本質，一個很自然的觀看動作，竟然蘊含無窮無盡的論證與巧思，我給這本書滿滿的五顆星!
閱讀這種書之前都要先深呼吸，因為不知道自己讀完以後思想上會有什麼樣的變化。我的經驗好壞皆有，有些書讀完以後會讓自己變得更消極，在一個講求快樂、積極、活潑開朗的社會裡，以小弟的經驗來說，實在不建議去讀那些批判性元素過重的作品，讀一讀Steven Covey或Tony Robbins的書比較實在，與成功有約啊! (這不是反諷喔^^)。反之，讀這種充滿哲理思辨的作品，程度輕者像玩喜八啦，小賭怡情；程度嚴重者就像俄羅斯輪盤，拿著槍對著腦袋轟一聲，腦漿四溢，得不償失啊!
所幸，這本MIT Essential Knowledge Series沒有讓我失望! 話說這個書系真的驚為天人，目前已經有超過80本的作品，而且主題越來越精彩，這是我讀的第14本，每一本都把我的思考電路板重新配線(re-wired)，原來有這麼多觀看世界的模式，所以才被稱為Essential knowledge，這些知識能幫助讀者釐清越來越複雜的日常生活。麻省理工學院是世界上首屈一指的科學/科技研究機構，很多影響全人類的科學發明、理論、技術都是從此誕生，MIT在媒體研究領域也很權威，MIT Media Lab根本就像科幻小說情節的實驗室，這種跨領域的交融實在太吸引人了! 不過，涉及愛潑斯坦的捐款一案，還是讓人唏噓，金錢真的是資本社會的話語權。
MIT Press也是世界知名的學術出版社，他們為了因應資訊爆炸時代的閱讀習慣，推出這一套輕巧優雅的Essential Knowledge Series，封面設計也相當精美! 本書系關注貼近時事的議題，邀請某個領域的專家以平易近人的筆觸撰寫獻給普通讀者的讀本。這些主題相當有深度，一般人沒時間，也沒心力去仔細研讀，所以這種書格外珍貴，整個書系的出發點就是希望讓忙碌的現代人，假如有心，能透過專家的指引，去蕪存菁，輕鬆愉快的認識一門深奧的學科。這個書系還有一個特點，MIT既然是科技研究的重鎮，它聚焦的主題也相當有科技感。目前科技巨頭統治整個世界，商業世界也彌漫著濃厚的矽谷氛圍，矽谷文化成為新時代的商業精神。這套書系介紹了許多科技相關的主題，從深度學習到網路迷因，主題橫跨商業、科技、文化、經濟、哲學…這個書系中我讀過的十幾本書，從來沒有讓我失望過，獲得的啟發只能以”大開眼界”來形容~
本書作者Alexis Boylan是康乃狄克大學的藝術歷史助理教授，她的研究專長包含藝術歷史、視覺文化、非裔研究(Africana Studies)，特別著重於性別和族群的議題上。光看她的研究領域，大概就能想像這本書的基調了，從藝術的高度出發，結合性別研究和族群研究的論述，透過多維視角的審視，刺激讀者去思考我們看到的世界，別再來者不拒，而應該適度的拒絕外界強加給你的視覺影像，唯有如此，我們才能在越來越失焦的21��紀，將自己的目光聚焦在真正有意義的視覺圖像。有意思的是，作者並不希望讀者完全把眼睛閉上，這樣等於徹底否定視覺文化存在的意義，良性的視覺文化會使觀者思考，進而產生對話，甚至產生共鳴。
MIT Press的Youtube頻道有作者的訪談，有興趣的人可以去聽一下，��縮了本書精華。我蠻喜歡聽這種有深度的對談，作者也提到訪談本身就是一種視覺文化的呈現。假如沒有新冠疫情，這場對話應該會發生於某間書店、講堂、教室…某個實體的空間，不過因為居家隔離，過去這一年半的時間，人類被迫使用線上視訊的方式溝通，甚至產生一些新的詞彙如zoom fatigue，大家一整天都要盯著螢幕，這也引起許多奇妙的心理反應。以前我們對著他人說話時，不會意識到”自己在說話”，但現在一邊說話，一邊就能看到自己講話的臉。你、我、他之間的分界變得更虛幻，每個人都成為半個漂浮的軀殼，人類這種生物好像只有上半身，下半身都消失了(恩…這樣叫腿控的人怎麼辦呢~)。針對這種微妙的心靈觸感，正是作者擅長的論述主題! 她也有合寫過一本書，從視覺文化的視角，去分析《瘋狂麥斯：憤怒道》裡的女性主義。你可能會覺得天啊，吃飽太閒嗎? 看個爽片，誰會在乎什麼女性主義? 所以囉~學術研究才永遠那麼小眾，跟一般生活脫節，但對喜歡思考的人來說，這種思考很有趣，賦予平凡無奇的事物生動的詮釋!
這本書不厚，大約120頁平裝版的內文而已，從what、where、who、when四個角度切入。作者最想傳遞的主旨就是希望讀者勇於挑戰既有的視覺文化，視覺影像的汰舊換新，本身就是社會進步的原動力。以藝術史為例，正宗的西洋藝術史是以白人為中心建構出來的，亞裔、拉丁裔、非裔等族裔是游離於邊緣的群體，因此當代的藝術欣賞，其實只是白人所認同的藝術，忽略了其他人的視角。另外，就算在白人的世界裡也有區分，主流的與非主流的，你有沒有想過，藝術家在歷史上的評價，究竟由誰定義? 難道畢卡索的畫，真的比某幅塗鴉更高尚嗎?
假如畢卡索是一位女性，她能獲得那麼高的評價嗎? 歸根究柢，人類社會太繽紛，總得有一個”正典”(canon)，為其他人樹立一個典範，所以這些”正典”成為主流的價值觀，非主流就被冷落了。但別灰心，視覺文化是動態的，並非一陳不變，例如Banksy的塗鴉，不也成為最高雅的拍賣會的寵兒嘛~
我很喜歡visual culture這個詞，觀看的方式，提供日常反思的借鏡。本書最令我印象深刻的論述跟金卡戴珊有關，我以前蠻討厭她這種鋪張浮誇的炫耀式消費主義，簡直是膚淺的極致! 讀完這本書以後，我反而開始欣賞她這種表現。作者說她把自己的軀殼打造成完美的賺錢機器，那些誇張的自拍其實讓她掌控了自己身體的話語權，在人類的歷史中，女性的身體經常被當作男性剝削的俘虜，女性身體的勞動價值(如做家事)也常常被忽視，”做家事”的社會價值沒有反應在GDP的計算裡，無法獲得金錢上的報酬，卻被認為理所當然。金卡達姍在某種程度上打破這種傳統思維，我使用我的身體賺我的錢，天經地義，完美女力的展現~這種觀看的方式，確實很有意思~
前陣子我找到一本得獎的學術作品《The Decisive Network: Magnum Photos and the Postwar Image Market》，研究馬格蘭攝影通訊社如何塑造二戰後人類觀看紀實影像的視角，新聞影像跟商業利益有哪些情慾糾葛呢? 前陣子看了德國之聲的紀錄片《Abbas by Abbas》，認識一位剛去世的攝影巨匠Abbas Attar，這種紀錄片真的是發人深省! 影像蘊含的力量無窮，一張圖勝過千言萬語。視覺就是文化，I see, I come, I conquer，凱薩所言甚是；看某種影片也一樣，I see, I cxm, I conquer. 誰叫人類天生是視覺性動物呢^V^
January 20, 2022
Definiteky a useful guide to current US visual culture with brilliant ‘provocative’ examples. Four chapters take up what who where and when to establish position og the spectator vs. the visual object in time and place. An easy read which is informative.
January 5, 2023
This is the best introduction to contemporary art and it’s impact in the public sphere I think could ever be published. I’m going to be recommending it to anyone who seems flabbergasted by art galleries and museums. This explains it all.
December 9, 2024
If we reject nonconfrontational consumption of the visual, our choice can, Ahmed says, "open a life, to make room for life, to make room for possibility, for chance."
:)
The second half isn’t as wow. Still great for a conflict avoidant.
:)
The second half isn’t as wow. Still great for a conflict avoidant.
October 1, 2022
Fascinating book - easy read, very well researched and now I have a wealth of references to further my research. Well written would highly recommend
April 15, 2025
Not easy reading but brings up interesting points.
August 11, 2024
i like the ideas/concepts/arguments this book brought up but i don't think it was very effective in holding my attention and i think it's examples didn't relate to me enough for me to take what's being said seriously.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews